Ian Pearson: Nineteen banks and financial institutions are already participating in the enterprise finance guarantee, so I would be surprised if lending managers at national and regional levels are not aware of the scheme and of what is on offer. The scheme was launched on 14 January, so it is still relatively new, and I know that the banks are looking at their communication strategies to make sure that the information is available at the lending level. The scheme is clear, it is open for business and doing business now, and it comes on top of the other lending that is also available in the economy. If my hon. Friend gives me the details of the specific problem that his constituent faces I shall make sure that it is investigated.

Patrick McFadden: I understand what my hon. Friend says, but I am not sure that the recent court judgments are relevant to the unofficial strike action over the past weeks. Those judgments are essentially about pay and about the capacity of trade unions to take industrial action in support of collective agreements. We have been told that all sub-contractors on the site at the Lindsey oil refinery are required to pay according to the industry agreed rates. ACAS will test the veracity of that claim, but that is what we have been told, so whatever this week's dispute was about, it does not seem, on the face of it, to have been about a race to the bottom in terms of pay.

Gareth Thomas: As my hon. Friend will recognise, the VAT cut, and other questions around taxation, are very much a matter for the Treasury, so the Treasury will review the effectiveness of that measure. However, it is interesting to note the support from several bodies that could in no way be described as friends of the Government all the time—the Institute for Fiscal Studies is one, and the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders is another—but which welcomed the impact of the cut in VAT, as indeed have a number of retailers. Perhaps that is because it represents the largest single tax cut for some 20 years. It is also just one of a number of areas about which the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) disagrees with his shadow Chancellor.

Ian Pearson: I will certainly ensure that the Department of Health is aware of the concerns that the hon. Gentleman expresses. We have made a prompt payment commitment right across Government, and we expect it to be delivered on. Inevitably, there may be some situations in which queries are made about invoices and judgments have to be taken about whether payment should be made, because we need to protect taxpayers' money. We want to ensure that payments are made properly and promptly, and I will happily ensure that his comments are passed on.

Kenneth Clarke: As the theme of these questions has been a series of pronouncements and commitments given by the Government and questions about dithering and failure to deliver, was the Minister surprised to hear to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when giving evidence on Tuesday to the House of Lords, openly debating what form his latest big announcement might take, and whether the Government were switching from insurance of toxic debts in the banks' balance sheets to a possible bad bank solution? As it is widely known that Baroness Vadera, a colleague in the Minister's Department, is mainly in charge of the banking packages, will he get across to her the need for urgency, efficiency and some competence in delivery, and stress to her that British business cannot afford further delay and uncertainty before credit is got flowing properly again to businesses of all sizes?

John Robertson: The recent interim "Digital Britain" report went on about access being very important, but provision is the important part. Does my hon. Friend agree that social tariffs would be one way of including those who are least well off, who have the lowest uptake, such as the people of Glasgow? If the Government go down the social tariff route, will they also talk to the mobile companies, which we also need to get on board?

Harriet Harman: Well, I give the hon. Gentleman 10 out of 10 for frothy presentation and about zero for substance, but I shall try to glean some substantive points from his comments. On Equitable Life, whatever the terminology—[Hon. Members: "Oh."] Well, we are talking about the Government recognising that there had been not only terrible mismanagement by Equitable Life but regulatory failure, that an apology was due, and that there was a need for financial recompense—whatever the words one uses to describe it. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement made to this House by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
	The hon. Gentleman asked when the Budget would be announced, so I shall tell him that it will be announced in the usual way. He implied that the Government were not taking action on the economy. I think he would recognise from all the statements made to this House and all the announcements that the Government have taken unprecedented action both to help people through the recession in this country and to work internationally to improve the global financial situation.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked about the Modernisation Committee. I did not avoid the question put last week—I answered it. There are many programmes of modernisation working their way through the system for which we can thank the Modernisation Committee—for example, those on pre-legislative scrutiny, post-legislative scrutiny and having Bills in plain English. The Modernisation Committee's work runs alongside that of the Procedure Committee. Because of ministerial appointments, there have to be new Members on the Modernisation Committee. I am sure that the Committee of Selection will come forward with those appointments and the work on the modernisation of the House will continue.
	On Monday, the business of the House carried on as usual, and I add my tribute to the one that you paid, Mr. Speaker, to the 800 members of staff of this House who came in to keep the House working as usual. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman was doing on Monday but, as far as I was concerned, as Leader of the House it was business as usual. He talked about snow, ice and grit. The Highways Agency is working with the Government, the Department for Transport and the Local Government Association to ensure that there is proper distribution of salt and that we can keep as many of the roads open as possible. He ended up with a general swipe at Ministers in the Lords, but I would like to pay tribute to the work of those people who step forward to be Ministers in the Lords; it is a question of serious people for serious times.

Stephen Ladyman: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that when the economy was growing rapidly, we legislated to expose empty commercial properties to business rates. When the economy slowed down, we exempted properties with a rateable value of up to £15,000. Is she aware that the South East England Development Agency and my local council have got together to build much needed industrial premises in my constituency that will help us to attract jobs when the economy starts to grow but, in the meantime, will shortly be a business rate liability on the taxpayer? Will she raise that issue with the Chancellor and will she arrange for us to have an opportunity to debate it in the near future, and certainly before the Budget?

Anne Snelgrove: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the scandalous gender pay gap of 40 per cent. in the banking sector? Will she urge her ministerial colleagues to take action to rectify that situation, particularly as far as bonuses are concerned? They hardly ever fall to women and are awarded entirely subjectively. Frankly, it is unacceptable of that industry to carry on in the way that it has been doing.

Harriet Harman: That is something that the Prime Minister answered yesterday. It is very much the preoccupation of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Tourism is very important in the city of York, which my hon. Friend represents, as well as in our coastal towns. I suggest that he could look for an opportunity for a Westminster Hall debate on the subject.

Andrew Slaughter: On the front of yesterday's  Evening Standard was a picture of uncollected rubbish lying in the snow in Hammersmith. Many of my constituents have had no bus service or refuse collection this week, nor have they been able to walk on their pavements or drive on their streets, all because the incompetent Tory local council was not able to carry out its basic function of planning for or reacting to adverse weather. May we have a debate in Government time to explore how the Government can persuade local councils to carry out those basic functions?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Leader of the House will be aware that I raised a point of order last night about the dwindling supplies of salt and grit in the country. Gloucestershire is in a particularly difficult situation: it has a 72-hour contract with Salt Union, but has been told that it may not get another supply next Tuesday, so it is severely rationing the number of roads that it can salt, which has implications for road safety. Will the Leader of the House guarantee to bring that to the attention of the Secretary of State at the DCLG today? If conditions deteriorate over the weekend, will she ask the Secretary of State to come and make a statement to the House? Clearly, we cannot have a situation in which the country is running out of salt.

Philip Hollobone: With my constituency under six inches of early morning snow, making minor roads impassable, my constituents understand why all the local schools are closed today. However, they do not understand why half the local schools were closed on Tuesday, when the roads were icy but passable. Will the Leader of the House make sure that there is a topical debate next Thursday and that the debate is on Britain's reaction to adverse weather conditions?

David Miliband: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement to the House on the case of Mr. Binyam Mohamed, following the judgment handed down yesterday in the High Court.
	The fundamentals of the case are as follows. Mr. Binyam Mohamed, an Ethiopian national formerly resident in the UK, was arrested in Pakistan in 2002. In 2004 he was transferred to Guantanamo Bay. Until August 2007, the Government had taken responsibility for the release and return of British nationals from Guantanamo Bay. In August 2007, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I wrote to then US Secretary of State to seek Mr. Mohamed's release from Guantanamo Bay and his return to the United Kingdom, along with four other former UK residents. Over the past 18 months, we have mounted what the Court has called a strenuous effort to achieve that objective. We have throughout kept Mr. Mohamed's family and lawyers informed of his situation and our efforts to resolve it.
	The United States brought terrorist charges against Mr. Mohamed in May last year before a military commission. Mr. Mohamed subsequently brought proceedings against the British Government in an effort to secure the disclosure to his legal counsel of any material held by the British Government that might assist the defence of his case before the military commission. Having looked through all the material that we held across Government, we provided through the appropriate legal and statutory mechanisms a great deal of both classified and unclassified UK information.
	Among the information we held, however, we identified some highly classified US intelligence material. We took the view that the material was potentially exculpatory and ought to be disclosed to Mr. Mohamed's legal counsel. As this was sensitive US Government material, we informed the relevant US authorities of our view; we also informed Mr. Mohamed's counsel. We have worked since then to ensure that all the material was, indeed, made available to Mr. Mohamed's legal counsel by the US Government through their own procedures.
	Across the four judgments handed down by the High Court since last August, the Court has explicitly recognised the efforts of the Government both to secure Mr. Mohamed's release and return, and to ensure that the material that we considered ought to be disclosed to him was, indeed, disclosed. The latter objective was achieved some time ago, when the US Department of Justice disclosed the material to Mr. Mohamed's counsel in the course of proceedings in the US federal courts.
	At the heart of Mr. Mohamed's case have been allegations that he was tortured by foreign Government officials in a number of locations. It is the longstanding policy of this Government that we never condone, authorise or co-operate in torture. I repeat that commitment today. We also take very seriously all allegations of torture and investigate them fully. Allegations have been made in the course of these legal proceedings that the UK is in some way complicit in the alleged mistreatment of Mr. Mohamed.
	Following the Court's judgment of 22 October, on 23 October last year my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred the question of possible criminal wrongdoing to the Attorney-General. That question is now being considered by the Attorney-General. That is, as the Court acknowledged yesterday, the proper democratic and legal process.
	Yesterday's judgment was not about that, however. It was about whether an English court should, in the interests of public debate and understanding, order the disclosure to the general public of sensitive foreign intelligence shared with our own intelligence agencies on the strict understanding that it would not be released. As anyone who has read the judgments will appreciate, in circumstances in which Mr. Mohamed's access to the information relevant to his defence had been secured, the sole question for my consideration concerned the publication of classified material received from a foreign intelligence service—in this case, the US.
	The question at issue was whether intelligence provided on a confidential basis by one state to another, in absolute trust that it will be kept secure, may be disclosed to the public by order of a foreign court, or whether instead, the breach of trust would be so grave as to endanger intelligence-sharing relationships and therefore affect national security. In this case it was US intelligence and an English court, but it could just as easily be British intelligence in a foreign court.
	I had before me the clear and unanimous advice of all key UK Departments and agencies. As the Court observed yesterday,
	"Intelligence is shared on the basis of a reciprocal understanding that the confidence in and control over it will always be retained by the State that provides it. It is a fundamental part of that trust and confidentiality which lies at the heart of the relationship with foreign intelligence agencies".
	Our intelligence relationship with the United States is vital to the national security of the United Kingdom. It is essential that the ability of the United States to communicate such material in confidence to the UK is protected. Without such confidence the US will simply not share that material with us.
	The same applies to our intelligence relationships with all those who share intelligence information with us. And what applies to them also applies to us. We share intelligence with a large number of countries. We do so to protect British citizens, and we do so on the basis that the material will not be put into the public domain against our wishes. To state the obvious, were our own classified information to be disclosed in such a way, it could compromise our work, our sources and therefore our security. It therefore was and remains my judgment that the disclosure of the intelligence documents at issue, by order of our courts and against the wishes of the US authorities, would indeed cause real and significant damage to the national security and international relations of this country.
	For the record, the United States authorities did not threaten to "break off" intelligence co-operation with the UK. What the United States said—and it appears in the open, public documents of this case—is that disclosure of the documents by order of our courts would be
	"likely to result in serious damage to US national security and could harm existing intelligence information-sharing...between our two governments".
	That is a simple affirmation of the facts of intelligence co-operation and it is worth noting that last night, in response to the High Court judgment, the US National Security Council reaffirmed the long-standing US position concerning the importance of protecting sensitive national security information and preserving the long-standing intelligence-sharing relationship between our two countries.
	The Court has concluded that there is no prejudice—I repeat, no prejudice—to Mr. Mohamed's case as a result of yesterday's judgment. The information in question is available to his US legal counsel. As the Court said:
	"upholding the rule of law...is most unlikely to depend on making the information public".
	The issue at stake is not the content of the intelligence material, but the principle at the heart of all intelligence relationships: that a country should retain control of its intelligence information, and that that cannot be disclosed by foreign authorities without its consent. That is a principle that we neglect at our peril.

David Miliband: Absolutely. I think that I am right in saying that anyone can make representations to the tribunal, and that remains the case, but the Home Secretary has referred the matter to the Attorney-General, and since last summer when these documents came to light the Foreign Office has attempted at every stage of the development of this case to keep the ISC informed in a full and open way, and that is our determination for the future.

David Miliband: I am sorry if my hon. Friend sees the referral of an allegation of mistreatment to the Attorney-General, the highest authority in our land, as a hear no evil, see no evil approach. The suggestion of the evil of torture is what has prompted the referral to the Attorney-General, who can then decide whether there is a case for criminal prosecution of the individuals involved. Far from this matter ending up on a shelf, the Attorney-General will decide where to take it.
	My hon. Friend showed through his early comments that this area is extremely complex and one where broad-brush statements have to be chosen with great caution. I say to him that the material is highly classified and that the aspects of complicity in torture elsewhere are published in the appropriate legal documents, and I refer him back to those.

David Miliband: We have not received such requests. When I spoke to the new US Secretary of State on Tuesday, I explained to her what we had done and that we expected two further former British residents to come back to the UK. In the words that I used at the European General Affairs Council last week, I explained that we had "done our bit" by bringing back 13 residents, which will become 15, but that we wanted to play our part in helping other countries to fulfil their commitment to help the US close Guantanamo Bay.
	I promised my European Foreign Minister colleagues last week that we were happy to share our experience of bringing those people back, and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that a number of European countries have already asked for our help on that. We want to help them do it, because they recognise their need to help the Americans close Guantanamo Bay.

David Miliband: My right hon. Friend shares with the Government not just a very strong commitment to uphold human rights around the world but the belief that where there has been error, there should be openness as a way of trying to remedy it, at least in part. However, she asks in what circumstances continued secrecy is appropriate. It is when sources would be compromised by their release. It is for each country to determine the circumstances in which public release, not release to the defence counsel, would prejudice that position. That is the right and pragmatic approach to this case.

David Miliband: No, my job is to take decisions. It is your job to offer opinions, it is our job to take decisions.
	I am not going to join a lobbying campaign for a very simple reason. The Obama Administration have made clear not just their abhorrence of torture but their determination to do everything that they can to change the image of the United States around the world in this respect. They have a choice to make about whether to release many aspects of intelligence, in the same way that we do. They will not release it if it compromises their sources, and they will certainly not accede to its release through a foreign court. That is the right approach.
	The new Administration have made clear, in a way the hon. Gentleman will probably argue that the previous Administration did not, their determination to clear the name of the United States. In that context, it is right to give them the scope to make a decision about all the issues that they face, which are far from confined to this particular case. I remind the House that there are a number of outstanding legal issues in the United States system on such issues, and every case has to be seen in that context.

David Miliband: Yes. I said in a different context in the House that democratic countries are held to a higher standard than terrorist groups or others, and that those standards are in our interest. When we violate them, we seriously let ourselves down. If the hon. Gentleman is referring to Abu Ghraib and other matters, he is right that that did huge damage to not only the moral standing but the political position of decent people everywhere.

Graham Stuart: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 15 December on behalf of my constituent, Mr. Raymond Hardy, who, like 30,000 others, had deposits with Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander in the Isle of Man. I have repeatedly chased up the Treasury for an answer. Yesterday, the Treasury e-mailed me, saying:
	"We are unsure when a final reply would be sent to you, as we have several thousand outstanding cases to be signed by ministers or drafted by officials. I would like to sincerely apologise for the delay in replying, but HMT correspondence has almost trebled over the past few months, and we simply do not have enough staff to complete all cases in time."
	So, I and other Members have constituents who cannot meet their commitments because they cannot access moneys, which are supposed to be guaranteed, yet their Members of Parliament cannot get an answer from the Treasury. Please could you help in ensuring that the Treasury does something about it?

Sri Lanka

Keith Vaz: May I thank the Minister for that statement, which is a strong condemnation of the actions of the Sri Lankan Government? On Saturday, 100,000 British Tamils marched through the streets of London peacefully, in order to draw attention to the plight of the Tamil community. Have the strong words that the Minister has issued in the House today been transmitted to the President of Sri Lanka?

Keith Vaz: I thank my right hon. Friend for organising a meeting last week with the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, in which these matters were raised. Does she agree that now is the time for the Government to appoint an envoy to succeed the current Secretary of State for Wales, who did the job extremely well? It is important that we send out a signal and the appointment of an envoy is one way of doing so.

Joan Ryan: I very much agree. We had two very useful meetings with the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and we are certain of their commitment to do more. I agree with the idea of appointing a special envoy, as envoys provide an important link and are able to form close relationships, to follow the situation and to report back directly to the Prime Minister. Such a role is important, so I hope that an appointment will be announced very soon.
	We have heard the figures and know that 250,000 people are trapped. The most worrying aspect is that the Government of Sri Lanka have denied any responsibility for the safety and well-being of civilians who are still in the war zone. Lakshman Hulugalle, director of the Government media centre in Sri Lanka, has said
	"the Government cannot be responsible for the safety and security of civilians still living among the LTTE".
	Yes, they can. I repeat: yes, they can. That is an outrageous statement, which demonstrates that the Sri Lankan Government are abandoning their responsibilities.
	There has been a huge number of civilian injuries and deaths. I believe that the estimate of at least 70,000 deaths has been updated to at least 75,000 and is increasing. We know that more than 10,000 people have been injured and that there are 220,000 displaced people. We know that more than 10,000 people have been injured, and that there are 220,000 displaced people. This is no longer a crisis; it is by any measure a catastrophe.
	Human Rights Watch has said:
	"Intense fighting between the Sri Lankan army and the separatist LTTE has caught an estimated 250,000 civilians in deadly crossfire, and in the past week civilian casualties have risen dramatically."
	Brad Adams, the Asia director of Human Rights Watch, has said:
	"Civilians are scrambling for shelter in an area that is under heavy artillery fire, including many children, wounded, and elderly who need urgent assistance."
	He added:
	"The UN and concerned governments should press Sri Lanka to take all necessary steps to spare civilians from harm."
	In contrast, military spokesman Brigadier Udaya Nanayakkara told the media
	"There were no civilians killed",
	and added:
	"We are targeting the LTTE. We are not targeting any civilians, so there can't be any civilians killed."
	I think that that signifies a complete abrogation of a national Government's responsibilities.
	Only yesterday, United Nations sources indicated that many reports were coming in of the use of cluster bombs in the safety zone. With my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), I raised that very matter with the Sri Lankan high commission, but the high commission, and all Government sources in Sri Lanka, regard any sort of question as an attack. Their attitude is "If you are not with us, you are agin us." There is no room for anyone even to question what is happening in Sri Lanka. The high commissioner—showing what I am afraid I would call almost a lack of respect—rubbished our suggestion, implying that we were simply foolish victims of propaganda and unable to make our own judgments on these matters. Meanwhile, Human Rights Watch has said that it is
	"unaware of any serious action by the government".

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and sometimes one feels powerless when such injustices are taking place, but it is our job in this House to make the case nevertheless.
	Colleagues have talked about how the press have been restricted. Not only have they been prevented from reporting the fighting, but journalists have been killed—the editor of  The Sunday Leader was murdered—and there have been attacks on CNN and the BBC, accusing them of partisan behaviour. That shows how low the Sri Lankan Government are stooping. Also, only recently they expelled non-governmental organisations providing humanitarian assistance in the north-east of the island from that area, which was despicable. The Sri Lankan Government are breaking international law in many ways, so the Minister was right to use such strong language. I simply urge him to do that more, and to go to the UN.
	I am conscious that other Members wish to speak, but I want to make one final, and very serious, point. In international discussions, there are too many countries who hide behind the idea that they are democracies; they think that as they have elections and voting, they are somehow beyond the law, but they are not. Democracies are not beyond the law, particularly when they abuse the rule of law, allow minorities to be attacked and attack civil liberties and human rights. In my view, that makes them non-democracies. Sri Lanka has a proud history as a fantastic democracy and country. In the early '70s, it was not just a beautiful island—many parts still are beautiful—but it reduced infant mortality and increased adult literacy to levels not seen even in our country. In the past, democracy in Sri Lanka produced fantastic achievements. That is why what is happening now is so tragic. It is betraying its own history, as well as its own people.
	Today, this House should be absolutely strong—I am looking forward to hearing Members' contributions—and the Government should have our full support as long as they take this argument to the Sri Lankan Government and take the message to the international community.

Lee Scott: I join the thanks to the right hon. Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan) and other members of the all-party group who facilitated the meetings with both the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister last week. I believe that the meetings have produced dividends and that things are pointing in the right direction, so it is to be hoped that we can bring about what everyone in this House has called for with a united voice.
	I fear that the Sri Lankan Government used events elsewhere in the world to camouflage their own attack. They knew the eyes of the world—including of the media—would not be on Sri Lanka, and they took that as an opportunity to conduct this offensive. My constituents, like those of other Members, are frightened to the core about what is happening to their relatives. They do not know whether they are dead or alive or injured; they cannot get any contact, and that is of great concern to them. It is therefore vital that all of us are their voices today; we must say to the Sri Lankan Government that this is not acceptable.
	There must be a ceasefire now. It must be immediate because if it is not, how many more thousands of innocent women, children and men will be killed every day in the coming weeks until the Sri Lankan Government, who wrongly think that a military option is the way forward, stop what they are doing? There must be a ceasefire and it is vital that it happens now. Whatever the means that need to be brought to bear, be it the United Nations, the Commonwealth or the meetings that the Foreign Secretary had with Secretary Clinton earlier this week, they must start to bear dividends, because if they do not, lives will continue to be lost in the Tamil community in Sri Lanka on a daily basis. If that happens, all of us in the western world should hang our heads in shame.
	We face a number of different problems. We have heard about the 75,000 people who have been killed—the figure I had was 70,000, so I am distressed to hear of the reassessment to 75,000—and the 250,000 people who have been displaced. Non-governmental organisations must be allowed into Sri Lanka now. I welcome the suggestion made by Labour Members that a new special envoy should be appointed to replace the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), because that is vital and I hope that that comes to fruition quickly.
	We have a duty to prevent the loss of any innocent life. As I have said in debates on other issues and other conflicts around the world, any loss of innocent life, on any side, is a tragedy. We are duty-bound to do something about this. What really holds fear for me is the fact that hospitals are being bombed and innocent people are being caught in the middle of a conflict. They want to live their lives in peace and harmony, as the rest of us do elsewhere in the world.
	The only solution to this situation is a political one that gives the Tamil community the right to have a say in and govern their own lives, and to live in freedom. If that does not happen, I fear that other Members of Parliament in decades to come will be in this Chamber having exactly the same debate as we are having—we must do everything we can to prevent that from occurring. It is vital that this debate of such importance has taken place; I, too, feel that the Leader of the House should be complimented on providing time for it. It is vital that when we go away from here, we leave more than just our words.
	I am aware that other hon. Members wish to speak, so I conclude by saying, as I said in an intervention, that the Sri Lankan Government should be ashamed of themselves for seeing everyone in this Chamber today as a terrorist because of our wish to stand up for people's rights. What we are not is what they accuse us of being. We wish to see human life being saved and people living in safe harmony and in a democracy.

Virendra Sharma: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this much needed debate. It gives me the opportunity to tell the House of the terrible circumstances in which the Tamil people of Sri Lanka are living. The story of those sad and terrible circumstances is one that I have been hearing for years from hundreds of my Tamil constituents who have family members under military bombardment from the Sri Lankan Government even as we speak.
	As chair of the all-party group on Tamils, I have had the opportunity to meet many Tamil MPs and leaders to hear about the tragedy of the Tamil people's plight, and to discuss the ongoing crisis in Sri Lanka with Members from all sides of this House. It has been difficult to get the message to a wider audience, but through this debate, the continued demonstrations and campaigning by UK Tamils and the increased awareness of the world's media, the appalling situation that innocent Tamil civilians find themselves in is becoming clear and the pressure for an immediate ceasefire and a long- term, just and peaceful settlement of this conflict is growing.

Andrew Pelling: What I recognise in this debate compared with the Adjournment debate that took place at the end of the Session before Christmas is a very changed atmosphere; unfortunately, our tolerance towards what has being going on with the Sri Lankan Government has come to an end.
	Many hon. Members representing London constituencies —south London constituencies in particular—attended two separate meetings, one with the Foreign Secretary and the other with the Prime Minister. I was genuinely impressed by the Government's very real concern to secure, by any appropriate means, a ceasefire in Sri Lanka; there was realism as to the leverage that the Government have and the need to work, and importance of working, with European partners and other powers around the world. It was prescient of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary to have those meetings with us before that large crowd of 100,000 British people marched past this place last Saturday. It is no wonder that there should have been such a strong showing of concern. The attendance was much greater than the Metropolitan police had anticipated, but 100,000 is their estimate of the number who attended.
	No wonder so many turned up when we hear stories of the Government of Sri Lanka suggesting that civilians move to so-called safe zones where they are then killed by actions by the Sri Lankan army. No wonder people are concerned when hospital compounds that include paediatric wards and intensive care units are shelled. In those circumstances, it is no wonder that so many Members of Parliament are in their places today and are keen for the appropriate leverage to be applied. Appropriate work has been done with our European partners on suspending European Union grants, but other sanctions may be required to ensure that further action is taken.
	The Sri Lankan Government still appear to be of the view that they can secure an unconditional surrender. The use of that term makes me very concerned about what the next steps will be in the treatment of the Tamil population in Sri Lanka. There is a real danger that some dreadful retribution will be meted out by the Government on the Tamil people—Tamils who are not terrorists, but simply the fellow countrymen of the Sri Lankan Government, who have pursued the foolish policy of waging war on their own people.

Simon Hughes: Absolutely. Many of us have been accused of being supporters of the Tamil Tigers, but I have never supported terrorism as a way forward in Sri Lanka. My appeal is to the Sri Lankan Government and the LTTE to renounce arms, but the Tamils will do so only if they have confidence that they will be protected. Just as the Sri Lanka Government may not have confidence in many Tamils, for reasons good or bad, so many Tamils will not have confidence in the Government. I am afraid that that is the position on the ground, and that is why the international agencies and organisations such as the UN's Commission on Human Rights, UNICEF, the International Committee of the Red Cross and others need to be present. Only with them there can there be any confidence in the north of Sri Lanka that there can be fair treatment.
	We are thousands of miles away, and we are not the only ones concerned about these matters. I received an e-mail on 3 February, which stated:
	"I have just come back from Colombo myself and I have met persons who are carrying out voluntary service in a small scale in Jaffna secretly, and other affected parts. They want to remain anonymous due to obvious reasons. I couldn't believe what they told me. The very people who are coming out of the troubled areas are kept in open camp with barbed wires around with no proper shelter. They are not allowed outside, nor are any relatives able to contact them or take them away to be looked after. The injured children are taken to the hospital but the mums are not allowed with them. They are crying out for help. This reminds me of the Hitler days and the pictures I have seen on films. What is shown in Colombo is the army handing out food parcels and water bottles and this is all propaganda by the Army and government.
	The person who told me was in tears when he told me that the young are being abused and they now have 55 cases of aids in Jaffna alone. My friend, together with other friends, donated their savings to create more beds in the intensive care unit in Jaffna hospital. Patients are sleeping on the verandahs on mats due to lack of medical help. Considering that Sri Lanka has the largest cabinet in the world with every one of them being provided with bullet proof BMWs, it appears that they can't afford hospital beds."
	The  Sunday Leader newspaper is regarded as the best independent paper in Sri Lanka, and its last editor has been referred to several times. He was assassinated in January, just the other day. An editorial that he had written—published posthumously—made it clear that he suspected that he might well be assassinated. In it, he owned up to being a friend of the president, so it was not a personal attack. He wrote:
	"A military occupation of the country's north and east will require the Tamil people of those regions to live eternally as second-class citizens, deprived of all self respect. Do not imagine that you can placate them by showering 'development' and 'reconstruction' on them in the post-war era.
	The wounds of war will scar them forever, and you will also have an even more bitter and hateful diaspora to contend with."
	People who have lived all their lives in Sri Lanka are calling out to us, and the journalist I have just quoted gave his life in the cause of independence and freedom.
	I wish to join colleagues in unanimously making the strongest possible statements about the situation in Sri Lanka. First, a ceasefire should be accepted immediately, as should the presence of the UN and the relief agencies. In addition, there needs to be a free press: Sri Lanka has the second worst record on press freedom in the world, behind only Eritrea.
	Secondly, there has to be a reference to the UN, the Commonwealth and other bodies, so that the international community can make their voices clearer. There may be a case for reference to the International Criminal Court. At least one Sri Lankan Minister is an American citizen, and there may be a war crimes issue to be dealt with.
	The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West, rightly made the point that the Indian Government could be hugely influential. Many people in Tamil Nadu who are Tamil by definition are about to vote in the Indian general election. They are an important part of the make-up of democracy in India. We should have a try with China and Iran, too, however difficult and unproductive that may be.
	Above all, we have to keep focused on the fact that a political solution will be needed. The current position is what Northern Ireland would be like if only Protestants were ever to play a part in the constitutional future of the Province. We know how foolish that idea was, and the situation there is different now. Unless Tamil people have a proper part in the future, and can determine their own part and their level of autonomy, there will not be peace. My call, and that of colleagues, is for the people of Sri Lanka at home and abroad to make it clear that the current politics of the Sri Lankan Government will never succeed. The Sri Lankan Government should realise that they need to be as magnanimous as other failing dictatorships have been; and that until they are, they will not have peace on their island. This is probably the most important issue facing the Commonwealth, and one of the most important facing the United Nations.

Stephen Hammond: I am grateful for this opportunity to say a few words. I will try to be brief so that the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love), who is the chairman of the all-party group on Sri Lanka, can say a few words. It is clear and important that today in the House we heard strong words of criticism from the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Harlow (Bill Rammell), and from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), on the unfolding humanitarian crisis. That must be important to the Sri Lankan Government, and to our Tamil constituents, who feel the oppression.
	As early as last April, it was quite clear that the Sri Lankan Government's next push would be to do what they have since done. I had the privilege of visiting Sri Lanka as a member of the all-party group last year. The reason why I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk was that we saw some progress in the east, even before the provincial council elections. We went to Jaffna, although our high commission tried to persuade us not to. Walking down the high street, we had the chance to meet some people who lived there. It is absolutely clear that Jaffna is, to all intents and purposes, a prison camp. There is a continuing problem there. Although the Sri Lankan Government think that they will have a military victory, will be no victory unless there is a political solution.
	The Tokyo Quartet is absolutely right to say to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, "Lay down your arms to make sure that there is no loss of life." The Minister may well take on board the points made about pressure at the UN and the need for an envoy, but the Sri Lankan Government must commit to an immediate ceasefire, too. They must ensure safe passage not only for the poor innocent people currently affected by the conflict, but for those who come to the ceasefire table and for the UN human rights mission. Will the Minister consider speaking to the Sri Lankan Government about a process that we learned in Northern Ireland—the de Chastelain de-armament process, which is binding on both sides—to accompany the ceasefire?
	Looking ahead, the eastern model may not be perfect, but it could be the basis for a solution. The Government must be made to realise that there cannot be a military victory in any credible international sense. A victory without a political solution for all Sri Lankans will be worthless. Without a negotiated solution and universal suffrage, the economic, cultural and political resentments of the Tamil community which have fuelled the conflict will remain unresolved and nothing will have been gained.
	I urge the Minister in his representations to consider not just the call for an immediate ceasefire, but for the measures that must accompany it. I listened to the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), who dismissed my point about sanctions. In other parts of the world we have seen sanctions hurt the very people we want to help. We must ensure that any sanctions that we impose hurt the people we intend to hurt.

Denis MacShane: The right hon. Gentleman quoted President Obama, who said just before his election "Afghanistan is a priority for me. The solution to Afghanistan is not achievable without the help and involvement of Pakistan, and to secure some stability in Pakistan we must address the Kashmir issue." I note that the Foreign Secretary did not mention India or Kashmir—probably rightly, as far as he is concerned. I wonder what the shadow Foreign Secretary, who has a freer remit, has to say about that. If he has nothing to say, I shall address the issue in my own speech.

William Hague: The Foreign Secretary probably feels that he has said enough about Kashmir for the moment, and that we are all familiar with his views. Of course we all look forward to the day when India and Pakistan can together find a way forward on that issue. We know that they are often quite resistant to the idea that they can be told from outside what that way forward may be. So rather than expanding on the subject today and getting into difficulties similar to those experienced on the Government Front Bench recently, I will avoid the temptation and continue with the rather interesting points that I thought I was making.
	The United States is considering an increase in its military presence in Afghanistan. Indeed, it has announced some increase, which we assume to have been a subject of discussion with United Kingdom officials. In the light of that, may I ask the Minister who will wind up the debate what the Government's assessment is of the number of additional troops that will be arriving in Afghanistan in 2009. How many of those troops will be operating in Regional Command South, and more specifically in Helmand province, and—crucially for us—what will be the command relationship between US and UK forces operating in Helmand province as part of ISAF?
	If the Government are to propose that the level of British forces in Afghanistan should be increased—and there is much rumour of that at the moment—we hope that Ministers will have at the forefront of their minds the serious overstretch of our military resources in recent years, in both human and material terms, as well as the huge contribution that British forces have already made. Conservative Members have long argued for a more rapid increase in the number of helicopters available to support our forces. Some changes appear to have been made, but they have largely related to an increase in flying hours rather than in actual helicopters, with the result that the number of helicopters that was servicing 3,000 soldiers at the beginning then had to service 8,000. We welcome the fact that some of the Merlin helicopters from Iraq will eventually be transferred to Afghanistan, but there remains a serious time gap before this new capability arrives.
	I hope that when the Government present to Parliament the result of their review—or the Washington review, perhaps, or a joint review—they will ensure, especially if they are to propose an increase in our British troop levels, that that proposal is accompanied by a clear explanation of the military necessity and purpose of such a deployment. I also hope they will ensure that it is part of an overall strategy encompassing further improvements in the co-ordination of international aid—we have been drawing attention to that for some years, and the Foreign Secretary joined us today in that—and accompanied by a readiness by other NATO allies to increase their effort and, if necessary, to engage in actual fighting, and that it will give some indication as to how the better governance that is central to military success will eventually be achieved. It must be a civil, political and military strategy so that the people of Britain—and, indeed, normal, peace-loving people in Afghanistan—can have some confidence that it will succeed. I do not underestimate how formidably difficult it is to bring such a strategy together and execute it, but even for those of us outside the Government who do not possess all the necessary information and advice, it seems clear that a new strategy must, as a minimum, have all the attributes I have listed, and I hope Ministers will also feel able to say that it must have all those attributes.
	In addition, it is obvious to all that one of the key differences between defeating the insurgency in Iraq and the insurgents in Afghanistan is that in the latter case it is possible for them to take refuge on the territory of another country—in the tribal areas of Pakistan. That is one of several reasons why the future stability and success of Pakistan as a nation are fundamental to our security and that of the wider world.
	Members in all parts of the House pay close attention to the affairs of Pakistan. We have all expressed the hope that the return of democracy will be for the long term, so that the repetitive cycle of democratic experiment and military intervention that has plagued Pakistan for decades comes to an end. For Pakistan, and for the future of the entire region, this is now a time of great opportunity, but of equally great danger.
	It is a time of opportunity because a new, democratically elected Government have come to power, and by all appearances that Government have made a serious effort to improve relations with Afghanistan and understand the importance of combating terrorism. The scale of the attacks on Pakistan itself—most notably and tragically in recent times the bombing of the Marriott hotel in Islamabad—has underlined the fact the Pakistan has no choice as a state but to try to root out terror from its territory.
	The danger lies in the sheer scale of the challenge. The federally administered tribal area alone covers more than 27,000 sq km, is not covered by national legislation, and has an impoverished and isolated population. Worryingly, power in recent times seems to be shifting from the traditional assemblies of tribal elders—the jirgas—to militant or neo-Taliban groups. Danger also lies in the economic condition of Pakistan, which is currently facing depleted foreign exchange reserves and an International Monetary Fund loan package but with every prospect of a continuing financial crisis. There have also been serious concerns about the role of elements of Pakistan's own internal security services.
	Our response to this must be serious, large scale and determined. We must do everything we can to help to entrench democracy for the long-term future in Pakistan, to encourage its leaders in their struggle against terrorism and to give financial assistance.

Gerald Kaufman: I join the Foreign Secretary in apologising for not being able to be present for the winding-up speeches; I long ago accepted an invitation from the Pakistani high commissioner to an event this evening relating to Kashmir.
	I also apologise to the House for the fact that I will not be speaking principally about Afghanistan. I recognise the huge achievements of our troops in Afghanistan, which are not mentioned enough. Women no longer come to my constituency fleeing from Afghanistan because of the persecution of women by the Taliban. The emancipation of women since British troops went to that country is one of the huge achievements of our intervention there and the sacrifices of our troops. Women are no longer stoned when they go on to the streets: they can now work and girls can go to school.
	I have a long association with Pakistan and have studied and followed its vicissitudes with great concern. I was most recently there to deliver the graduation address at the Institute of Science and Technology in Karachi, which is named after Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the Prime Minister of Pakistan who was murdered by the military regime, just as his daughter was murdered only just over a year ago. Those of us who care deeply about Pakistan have been heartbroken by the way in which the attempted entrenchment of democracy has been undermined by spells of military rule.
	There have been tragic vicissitudes in Pakistan over the 61 years of independence, but now it is once again a functioning democracy. That democracy was initiated when the founder of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, sat in the Gallery of the House of Commons listening to debates and learning that democracy was the best way for the country that he wanted to found. It is essential that our Government and the US Government in particular work sustain the parliamentary democracy that has returned to Pakistan and is the legacy of my good friend, Benazir Bhutto.

Jo Swinson: First, may I pass on the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey)? Unfortunately, he has a prior engagement and is unable to be here for the debate.
	I am very pleased that we are having this debate in Government time on the Floor of the House and not as an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall. Afghanistan and Pakistan are vital, both in the international context and for the UK. The Government are right to say that they need to be seen together and as part of the wider region.
	History has shown that Afghanistan in particular is fraught with difficulty, especially for any military endeavour. It is fair to say that the whole region has a huge potential for conflict if left unchecked and if we do not succeed in achieving the objectives that we have set out. It is therefore absolutely right that it is a priority for the UK's diplomatic efforts.
	The topic of Afghanistan and Pakistan is a very wide one, and this debate has provoked a lot of interest despite the short time available. I hope that the House will understand that it will be impossible for me to cover every aspect, but I hope to be able to speak about what I see as the key priorities for Afghanistan—support for our troops, tackling the drugs trade and development aid—and the situation in Pakistan.
	I agree very much with the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) that, although the debate is very welcome, three hours is not really sufficient. I understand that our time is restricted because of the other business before the House today, but we will need to return to these matters regularly as the situation develops. I hope that, as they have today, the Government will be generous in making time available for us to do so.
	The problem of Afghanistan requires a regional diplomatic solution that includes Pakistan and, importantly, Iran. The developments over the past couple of days with the British Council have been especially worrying, but we should try to see them as an opportunity to engage with Iran. It is not in that nation's interest to have a lawless void of a country on its doorstep, and the problems of the drugs trade and the impact that it is having on Iran have been mentioned already. It is essential that we bring Iran as well as Pakistan and the other neighbouring countries into the discussions. In the Balkans, peace was secured on a regional basis through the Dayton agreement, and we should look at adopting a similar approach in this case.
	I very much welcome the willingness that President Obama has shown since his election to engage diplomatically with the countries that are Afghanistan's neighbours. He has rejected the rhetoric of the war on terror, which undermined some of our diplomatic efforts by lumping everyone into being either with us or against us. It is easy to think of the Taliban as one entity, but that catch-all name covers a wide variety of people. Some of them are al-Qaeda sympathisers and very hard core, but others are more moderate, seeing the Taliban as a way to provide a degree of stability and security. We need to be able to engage and have discussions with them to see whether we can forge a way forward. That is something that our Government should definitely be doing.
	I echo the Foreign Secretary's welcome of Richard Holbrooke to his new role in Afghanistan. I very much enjoyed the letter that my noble Friend Lord Ashdown sent to him through the pages of  The Times earlier this week. In the paragraph that stood out for me, my noble Friend talked about the priorities for Afghanistan. He said:
	"We need a clear plan and some ruthless priorities. When I was going to Afghanistan in 2008 they told me we had 15 priorities. But if you have 15 priorities, you have none."
	He is quite right: we need to focus on a few priorities and fulfil them properly, rather than do 15 things badly. In his letter, Lord Ashdown outlines three priorities—human security, the rule of law, and governance—that I think have merit.
	In relation to human security, if the people of Afghanistan are continually threatened by violence as they go about their daily lives, and if they have no jobs or access to basic essentials such as electricity, water and health care, the ingredients for conflict are present and easily stoked up. However, if we can provide those basic necessities of human security, citizens will have a stake in peace and—crucially—a reason to support the Government.
	Perhaps it goes without saying that the rule of law is essential but, if we do not create faith in the Government and the rule of law, the prospects for peace look very dim. However, securing peace will involve tackling the corruption that has been rife in the Karzai Government. To put it mildly, the international community is losing some faith in that Government. New elections may be the solution to that problem.
	There is the issue of how the rule of law can be enforced, particularly in the short to medium term. Obviously, we want to move to a situation in which the police force is "Afghanised"—a term that has been used. More troops may be necessary, and Obama has talked about a surge and sending in new troops. It is certainly possible that the UK ought to be prepared to add to the troops there, although given the overstretch that we already face in the military services, the number of additional troops committed would have to be small. Perhaps we should redouble our efforts to encourage our EU partners, and other countries that recognise the vital importance of Afghanistan, to play their part more seriously, and provide the military support that is required if we are to meet our objectives. As I am sure the Foreign Secretary will appreciate, the issue is not just the number of troops; it is also the strategy. Continuing in the same vein as before is unlikely to yield results. Although I support additional troops, I very much hope that the Foreign Secretary will look, with our international partners, at a change in strategy in Afghanistan.
	The third priority is strengthening governance. It is easy for us, sitting in our traditional Parliament, to think that the style of democracy that evolved here is the only one that can work, and that we must impose it on other countries. The western style of governance may not be the right answer for Afghanistan. Indeed, there has been more than a century of foreign invasions in that country and attempts to overrule the tribal structures on which Afghanistan is based. History tells its own story; those adventures have not been successful. Trying to go against the grain of the country has not led to success. We really need to consider whether working with existing tribal structures and strengthening them democratically is a better way to approach the situation.
	Of course, the Foreign Secretary and shadow Foreign Secretary were right to pay tribute to all the members of the British armed services, and the civilians and aid workers, who are risking their lives in Afghanistan, as well as those from other countries around the world. When the House of Commons takes the difficult decision to engage in a conflict such as that in Afghanistan, we have a real responsibility to give the young men and women whom we send to that country the support that they need. The military covenant, which has worked well for many decades, is coming under increased stress because of the lack of support that many serving members of our armed forces have felt in recent years due to overstretch.
	As has been mentioned, 143 British personnel have been killed in Afghanistan in the past eight years, and nearly 100 more have been seriously injured or wounded. In our constituency surgeries, people who served in Afghanistan tell us stories about the lack of equipment. It has certainly touched my heart to hear of the fears surrounding the use of armoured vehicles, particularly Snatch Land Rovers, which have caused the death of seven of our personnel. It is welcome that the Government have finally announced that there will be 600 new armoured vehicles going to Afghanistan. However, they took too long to come to that decision. It was evident a very long time ago that the Snatch Land Rovers were not adequate and sufficient equipment for our troops serving there.
	I hope that the announcement will be properly backed up, and that the 600 vehicles will arrive on time. Back in 2007, 96 new armoured vehicles were promised, but according to  The Daily Telegraph, only 16 were delivered on time. I hope that we have learned lessons from that experience, and that we can make sure that the new armoured vehicles get to the brave soldiers who need them. The shadow Foreign Secretary mentioned helicopters, which, in a country such as Afghanistan, are vital, as it is very difficult for any foreign army to deal with the terrain. Of course, the enemies there know the terrain and their homeland much better than we do, so helicopters, allowing swift movement of troops, are absolutely vital.
	The other point to make about honouring the military covenant is that we should ensure that the troops whom we send to war zones have adequate time in between tours to recover, to spend with their families, and to have the semblance of a normal life. That has not been happening to the extent that it should, because of the overstretch. That should be borne in mind when the troops come home from Iraq later this year. They cannot immediately be sent to Afghanistan. We need to take into account their health and psychiatric care needs. That is why a large increase in troop numbers from this country will not be possible.
	With regard to opium and poppy cultivation in Afghanistan, clearly the building of a legal economy with secure incomes for citizens is essential. The economy that has developed over the past couple of hundred years has thrived on the trade in weapons and narcotics. As a result, the incomes of many people have relied on the instability in the region, which totally undermines what we are trying to achieve. I read recently that the opiate industry in Afghanistan produces exports equal in value to half of the rest of the Afghan economy, so there is obviously a huge challenge.
	Various responses to that challenge have been suggested. The US has often favoured spraying the poppy fields, but that could undermine our efforts to build relationships with individuals and would not be helpful in diplomatic terms. Others, including some hon. Members, have suggested that we should buy up the entire poppy crop and use it for the legal trade in morphine, but again, that would not necessarily do us any favours in building relationships.
	The strategy that seems to have had some success is supporting initiatives to move from the poppy crop to, for example, wheat and other agricultural products. As was mentioned, the resulting number of poppy-free provinces increased from 13 in 2007 to 18 in 2008, and particularly in the north-east of the country the scheme has had some success. It is vital that that continues, because the narcotics trade is fuelling corruption, which undermines the rule of law and governance.
	On the international development support that we give, there has been some positive progress on some indicators since the fall of the Taliban. Figures for infant mortality show that 40,000 fewer babies die each year. The number of functioning health clinics is up by 60 per cent. So there is some good news, but there are huge problems from an international development perspective, with up to 5 million people facing food shortages and 1.8 million at high risk of malnutrition. Those circumstances continue to undermine the security situation.
	The issue that I particularly want to raise with the Government is the distribution of aid, because there is still a tendency in Afghanistan for development aid to reflect donor priorities, rather than Afghan priorities—a tendency to look at Afghanistan from a country perspective, rather than at the totality. Often, when we talk about Afghanistan, we naturally think about Helmand and about our troops who are there, but a more strategic overview is needed. I hope DFID can contribute to that. Oxfam has suggested that the uneven spread of aid is contributing to insecurity, so I hope the Government will take up the issue and ensure that the aid programmes to which all the various international partners contribute are properly co-ordinated to reflect the national priorities, not just the regional priorities, in Afghanistan.
	Returning to the security situation, the effort to provide aid in Afghanistan has been hampered by the increase in deliberate attacks on aid workers. There were 30 such deaths last year which, as I am sure the House would agree, is a very worrying development. It takes us back to the initial priorities of securing people's ability to go about their daily lives and ensuring that the rule of law is respected.
	I turn now to Pakistan. It is just over a year since we were having various debates in the House following the assassination of Benazir Bhutto so shockingly on 27 December 2007. There was a cautious optimism in the House at the time that the elections would go ahead and proceed peacefully. At the same time there was an acceptance that the situation was fragile and could go horribly wrong. As we look back one year on, it is welcome that elections took place fairly peacefully and that there is a coalition Government and a return to democracy between the Pakistan People's party and the Pakistan Muslim League. Obviously, that is welcome progress, although we are not quite there yet as there are still major challenges, particularly in the Pakistani Government's relationships with the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence and the military, and in respect of where the true power and control within the country lie.
	It is vital that we involve the Pakistani Government in any of our diplomatic efforts to secure peace in Afghanistan, particularly when it comes to the border regions and the federally administered tribal areas. I had read about the problems in that region, but I was still momentarily stunned by the statistic read out by the Foreign Secretary: female literacy in the region is just 3 per cent. When we discuss international affairs, intense poverty and great problems, we sometimes get away from the human and the individual. However, a statistic such as that makes us start to appreciate how dire the situation is and how much progress needs to be made. There is a whole range of different indicators. We can see the link between the education of women and the economic development and progress of countries; that literacy situation means that the economic future of the region is also under great threat.
	The intention of the Obama Administration to address the threat of the FATA areas is welcome. Securing a border agreement and bringing the region under the legitimate rule of central Government is of utmost importance to international security. It is right that we should work with the Pakistani Government to achieve those goals. None of that will be easy; the challenge for us and our international partners is incredibly difficult. India has been mentioned. There is little time to go into the issue in great detail, but the relationship between Pakistan and India has clearly been hugely shaken by the Mumbai bombing; that, of course, was the very objective of those attacks. Understandably, there have been very strong words from the Indian Government, but so far there has been no form of retaliation. I think that that is a positive sign that the two Governments recognise the importance of getting their relationship back on track.

Jo Swinson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He is right, and the international community should do anything that it can to support the efforts of India and Pakistan to work through the difficulties caused by the attacks. Proper investigation is certainly part of that, and bringing to justice the people responsible would be incredibly helpful.
	There was a statement today on the case of Binyam Mohamed, and there is no point in my going over that debate. However, I should say that our action in Afghanistan is to uphold human rights and the universal values that the terrorists seek to undermine. Stooping to practices such as torture would fatally undermine our own case. I welcome the Government's statement that we never condone torture or allow the practice of it; clearly, there can be no justification for torture under any circumstances. If there is evidence that Binyam Mohamed was not tortured, we need to see it. If there is evidence to the contrary we equally need to see that, so that those who knew about it and were responsible can be held to account under international law.
	In conclusion, I welcome the regional context that the Foreign Secretary set out. Afghanistan and Pakistan must be seen together in a regional frame. Although we have made some limited progress in Afghanistan, there is clearly still a massive task ahead of us. Business as usual will not provide us with the right way forward. We need new and clearly articulated priorities. We have to hope that there is a cause for optimism with the current international good will towards new US President Obama. Perhaps that gives us a little window of opportunity in many foreign affairs issues which should be exploited to the maximum.
	As the House will know, my party has not been universally supportive of UK intervention abroad, but in the case of Afghanistan there was consensus not only in the UK but, amazingly, in the international community. The success that we seek to achieve in Afghanistan and in the wider region, including Pakistan, is absolutely vital, not only for the international community but for UK interests, whether in terms of safety and security, counter-terrorism or counter-narcotics. That is why the region must remain a top priority on the Government's agenda.

Mohammad Sarwar: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in a debate on a matter that is so close to my heart and to which, owing to my origins, I am so deeply connected. I should like to begin by highlighting the strong mutual relations that exist between the United Kingdom and Pakistan arising from their long-standing historical association with one another. I was fortunate that in my youth, when I was growing up and studying at university, Pakistan was a modern, liberal state run according to modern democratic and Islamic ideals in which traditional Islamic values were reconciled with modern, liberal ideas.
	However, there was a dramatic change shortly after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The United States Government viewed the conflict as an integral part of their cold war struggle against the Soviets and so saw it as being in their interests to provide assistance to any Afghan-led resistance movement regardless of its fundamentalist and extremist elements. Such support, although successful in achieving the immediate goal of a Soviet defeat, afterwards served only to strengthen the extremists' hold over Afghanistan and Pakistan. As soon as the Soviets were defeated in Afghanistan, the Americans abandoned the people of Afghanistan, leaving the different factions to fight among themselves. No assistance was given with the rebuilding of homes, schools and infrastructure that could have helped the people of Afghanistan to recover and to create a stable and secure democratic nation, capable of countering extremism.
	Similarly, after the tragic events that took place on 9/11, which triggered the US-led invasion of Afghanistan, no prior plan was ever conceived to deal with the aftermath. The US-led force devastated what was left of a very poor country that had already been ravaged by war, and yet made no real efforts to invest in it and help it to recover. The people of Afghanistan never saw any visible benefits of change after the defeat of the Taliban. Instead, they have been let down once again by the west, which, halfway through the invasion, shifted its attention towards the invasion of Iraq. That is a mistake which the United States has made before, and we must not allow it to happen again. I therefore thank my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for having made Afghanistan one of the UK's top foreign policy priorities. I also commend the Government for the substantial development and stabilisation aid that is to be delivered to Afghanistan over the next few years.
	Earlier this year, I led a delegation of hon. Members from the United Kingdom, including my hon. Friends the Members for Livingston (Mr. Devine), for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mark Fisher) and for Dundee, West (Mr. McGovern), on a visit to Pakistan, at a time when there were rising tensions between it and India because of the deplorable and vicious attacks, which we must all condemn, on the innocent people of Mumbai. We were all very grateful to His Excellency Mr. Javed Malik, Pakistan's ambassador at large, who made all the necessary arrangements for our visit. We were very privileged to meet the President of Pakistan, Mr. Asif Ali Zardari, the Prime Minister, Mr. Syed Yousaf Raza Gilani, and Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, former Prime Minister and current chairman of the Pakistan Muslim League (N), who during his time as Prime Minister helped to foster better relations between India and Pakistan. He was particularly grateful for the hospitality extended to him by the British Government during his time spent in exile.
	We were all honoured to have had the opportunity to meet her excellency, Dr. Fahmida Mirza, speaker of the National Assembly of Pakistan, and the first Muslim woman speaker in the entire Muslim world. My colleagues and I were tremendously impressed by her passion and commitment to the fragile democracy of Pakistan. Those we met were eager to see Pakistan flourish as a democratic Muslim nation, and emphasised their commitment to rid the country of the scourge of terror. They also expressed their gratitude for the substantial aid and investment package the United Kingdom Government have offered them to help to redevelop the education system and health care, and to counter the influence of militancy.
	We also had the privilege of meeting the Leader of the Opposition, Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan. He was extremely grateful to the British Government, particularly the British high commission in Islamabad, for their support when he and others were subjected to political victimisation. That made me and all the members of the delegation feel immensely proud. However, all the people that we met were extremely concerned and angry at the continued use of drone attacks by the United States, which they felt were not only counterproductive to their attempts to tackle terrorism, but were actually harnessing extra support for extremist groups. Such attacks are a violation of the sovereignty of Pakistan and we must urge the United States to bring an immediate halt to their use.
	We need to understand and appreciate that Pakistan is also the victim of terror, and that it is going through difficult and challenging times, especially bearing in mind the recent assassination of the former Pakistani Prime Minister, Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto—the terrible loss of a great leader. It is estimated that Pakistan has so far lost more than 1,000 soldiers in fighting militants on the border with Afghanistan. At the same time, both countries have been subject to numerous suicide bombings—in the last year alone, more than 2,000 civilians in Pakistan have lost their lives to such bombings.
	In conclusion, I must emphasise the importance of a resolution of the Kashmiri conflict in favour of the people of Kashmir. It is perhaps one of the most important issues in this debate, and an area on which both Pakistan and India need our help. It is also an essential part of the road map to a stabilised Afghanistan. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was absolutely right when he said that
	"Resolution of the dispute over Kashmir would help deny extremists in the region one of their main calls to arms".

Paul Flynn: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell), who has been the voice of history and the voice of sanity on the subject of our debate for many years.
	There were many omissions from the Foreign Secretary's speech. He inadvertently gave a wholly misleading impression when he suggested, in answer to an intervention, that we have only two choices: to carry on what we are doing or to cut and run. Those are not the only choices—there are many others. As has been suggested, it is possible to do deals. Subtle and complex deals, which are not straight deals with those who are pro-Karzai or pro-west, have been done successfully. That is the way forward. If we do not do deals, we might end up with the retreat from Vietnam by the Americans or the retreat from Kabul by the Russians. There is a way we can defend and consolidate some of the gains. Those gains are greatly exaggerated, but there have been some in education and in the position of women in Afghanistan. Unless we do a deal, we might lose them all.
	The Foreign Secretary did not mention the surge, which is very much on our minds. Let us go back to what happened in this country. There was universal support, including from me, when we went into Afghanistan, although I did not think that the aims were attainable, particularly the ones to do with drugs. There is no consolation there, in spite of what the Foreign Secretary said. In the past three years we have seen the three largest drug crops ever and the price of heroin on the streets of Britain and France is lower than it ever was. There has been no success there.
	We are talking about a country that is hugely divided, as the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle said. I have a constituent who describes himself as the King of Baluchistan. Baluchistan is never talked about, but when Karzai sent in 12 emissaries to bring the Baluchs under control, their reaction was to behead them. Afghanistan is a huge, complex country that has been divided for millennia by tribal jealousies, as the hon. Gentleman described.
	Let us look at the idea of putting in the military. Nobody says there is a military solution on its own, but there is nothing else to go with it. We can talk about construction, but although there was great celebration when a turbine was taken to a power station site, it took 3,000 soldiers to guard its passage there over many weeks. We know that the Taliban's first roadblock is 15 miles outside Kabul, and Kandahar is under their control, apart from a few square miles of compounds controlled by NATO.
	I believe that we are mistaking the view of the Afghan people. They were fed up with the Taliban and certainly welcomed us when we went in in 2001. However, the mood now is very different. What we are offering is eternal war—an American in the Pentagon told me that we would be there for generations. If that is the prospect for the Afghan people—either they bring the Taliban back or the Taliban take control, or there is a war in which Afghanistan loses 2,000 civilians a year as a result of bombing—they could move to the view that life might be more tolerable under the Taliban, so we are in a very weak position.
	The great worry that we all have is about the extension of the war to Pakistan. Indeed, America is bombing sites in Pakistan now. The battle to win hearts and minds has gone terribly wrong. We should think back to the debate that we had in Westminster Hall in March 2006 and what all the parties to it said. There were interesting contributions from Opposition Members in that debate. As I mentioned in an earlier intervention, at that time only seven British soldiers had died, mostly as a result of accidents.
	The Government were warned that going in to Helmand province was like stirring up a hornets' nest, because we were the Ferengi—the foreigners—against whom there would be jihad again. The view of many Afghans is that their sublime motive in life is to die in jihad, as their fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers did. We are sending troops in as targets for people who are looking for their pathway to paradise. When we began our intervention, the hope was—this was said at the time and it cannot be unsaid—that we could go into Helmand province and stay there for three years without a shot being fired. We know now that 4 million shots have been fired, and we will be there possibly for 30-plus years if we continue with this foolishness.
	I urge the Government to look again at what is happening. I urge them to take the intelligence of the new US President and General Petraeus, who are clearly subtle thinkers—we are not dealing with George Bush now—so that we can follow in the slipstream of Obama and his policies and look to a solution that is based on negotiation and doing deals. We cannot get rid of corruption. Corruption has been the lubricant of business and politics in Afghanistan for centuries and it will remain so. At the moment the corruption runs all the way up to the family of the President. There are a significant number of new millionaires in Afghanistan as a result of our presence and our spending there.
	We have already spent far too much in Afghanistan, in blood and in treasure. We must look to the future. We cannot send our young men and women over there to die in vain in a war with impossible aims that cannot be achieved.
	The message that should come from the Chamber today is that there should certainly be no surge. There should be no increase in the number of British troops there; it is madness to believe that that would make any difference. Russia had 100,000 troops there, and there were 150,000 Afghans under arms. The Russians lost 6,500 of their own troops. They were there for 10 years and spent billions of roubles, but they ran away when 300,000 mujaheddin surrounded Kabul. We must ensure that we do not get ourselves into that position.

Malcolm Rifkind: Listening to the thoughtful speech by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) and the splendid speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell), I could not help but reflect on my own first ministerial visit to the region in 1982, when I was an Under-Secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. At that time, the Soviets were in occupation in Afghanistan. While in Peshawar, I visited an Afghan refugee camp. When the Afghan refugees heard that a British Minister was present, I was required to make a speech. I spoke to 10,000 Afghan refugees, with their rifles and bandoliers, and I said the kind of things that one would expect me to say. I said that we looked forward to their achieving their freedom, and to the day when the Soviet Union would return to its own country.
	The speech was translated into Pashtu, but what I did not realise was that it was then translated back into English for the English-language  Peshawar Times that appeared the following day. When I read it, I saw remarks attributed to me that I did not exactly recall having said. It said that the visiting British Foreign Office Minister had called upon the Afghans to continue the jihad against the Soviet infidel. I was not so worried about what the  Peshawar Times had said; my concern was that Mrs. Thatcher, back home, might get a report of it. On further reflection, however, I thought that if she did, she might think that the Foreign Office was not quite so wet as she had previously assumed.

Malcolm Rifkind: Perhaps I could continue my remarks for the moment.
	Of course, the British and western presence in Afghanistan is of a quite different order to the Soviet occupation, and it is important to remind ourselves why we went there. We did not go there to eradicate the poppy trade, to introduce democracy or to give women greater rights—entirely desirable though they be. They were no more the reasons why we went into Afghanistan than why we ever sent our troops into many other countries around the world. We went there because the Taliban Government had given sanctuary to al-Qaeda and had every intention at that time of continuing to do so.
	This is crucial. Despite what the Foreign Secretary tried to suggest, the reality is that in the earlier years of the western presence in Afghanistan, as seen in all the speeches made by Ministers, both American and British, we appeared to be giving equal weight to nation building along with the eradication of the Taliban and the political control of the territory of Afghanistan. That was always a very foolish set of assumptions because nation building, although highly desirable, is a matter that will take at the very least a generation to achieve and it will certainly depend on cultural and social factors as it simply cannot be implemented by military means.
	The risk that we followed by taking that approach was, until relatively recently, twofold. First, of course, it could not be achieved, so the consequence was failure. Secondly, we risked—as we still do—losing public support in this country and other NATO countries because we did not seem to be delivering the democracy, the freedom from corruption and the end of the poppy trade, which we claimed were our objectives. I noted that Robert Gates, the American Defence Secretary, said three weeks ago that
	"the goals we did have for Afghanistan are too broad and too far into the future."
	He acknowledged that America had changed its position, and I just wish that the Foreign Secretary and the Government would make a similar acknowledgement rather implying that they had said this all along, when that was not and has not been their position until relatively recently.
	If we are to see the continuing elimination of Afghanistan as a base for terrorist activity, we should first realise that we have already achieved that objective. For the year since NATO arrived in Afghanistan, al-Qaeda has not been able to use that territory as a base for its vicious terrorist activities; and our objective should be entirely concentrated on how we ensure that that continues to be the case in the future.

Malcolm Rifkind: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but it is not as good as he thinks it is. The fact remains that while the Soviet Union was in effective occupation of Afghanistan, the international community of course used whatever means were available to eliminate the Soviet presence from the country—and it succeeded. The fact that some of the individuals in the mujaheddin—some, not all—went on to be international terrorists is not a matter for which either the United States or anyone other than the individuals concerned can be blamed. I think that the hon. Gentleman would recognise that fact.
	The objective is, as I have indicated, to maintain, not to achieve, a position whereby al-Qaeda is no longer able to operate from within Afghanistan. We know that the single greatest problem at the moment is that both al-Qaeda and the Taliban can take sanctuary in the frontier area—in the hills and caves on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The question is therefore how we can improve that situation and assess why it is proving so difficult. It is not a new problem.
	I mentioned being in the country in 1982 and I remember going to the Pakistan part of the Khyber pass at that time. As I entered the area, there was a sign on the road which effectively said that the Pakistani Government would not accept responsibility for anything that happened more than 100 m off either side of the main road. There has been a long period of uncertainty and lack of effective control, but what has made it worse is that deep Pakistani neurosis that both India and Afghanistan are seeking the ultimate dismemberment of their country. That may be a grossly unfair accusation—it probably is grossly unfair accusation—but Pakistan is, of course, an artificial state. I hope I will not be misunderstood in saying it, but it was a state created for a specific purpose at a specific time.
	We know that, as has already been mentioned, Afghanistan has never, since 1948, recognised the Durand line as the legitimate international frontier between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Of course that gives rise to elements within the Inter-Services Intelligence, within the armed forces in Pakistan and possibly within the Government who say, "Actually, we would rather have the Taliban than anyone else, because however evil the Taliban may be, they are not particularly nationalist in their ideology." Nationalism is not what interests the Taliban; what interests them is Islam, of a particular mediaeval kind. From the Pakistani point of view, while all Afghan Governments have not been particularly useful to them, the Taliban were more acceptable—in the past, when they were in charge—because they did not seem terribly interested in frontier issues.
	Against that background, we—as NATO, and as the international community—are entitled to say to President Karzai, "Look, if you want us to continue helping you, you must do what is in your power to help the situation." What is within the power of the Afghan Government is the resolution of the frontier problem between the two countries. If Karzai is not willing to do that, he must recognise that he cannot expect the kind of support that he would be entitled to expect otherwise.
	Those are important issues, but let me comment on two other matters. Of course it is the case that, in many respects, President Karzai has proved to be a serious disappointment. He is thought to be corrupt, inadequate and unable to govern in an effective fashion. We constantly hear the question, "Should the international community dump Karzai because of his inadequacies?" We need only give that question a moment's thought, however, to realise what a grossly improper suggestion it is. One of the arguments employed by the west—the international community—is that Karzai is the first elected President in Afghanistan's history. How can we possibly be seen to be involved in seeking to remove him? That must remain a matter entirely for the Afghan people. They will decide in their own way—and let us hope that they have the means to express it in a proper way—that they will have either Karzai or some alternative President, if that is their wish.
	Finally, I want to say something about the role of the Taliban. I said earlier that our objective in Afghanistan was not primarily to bring about democracy, the end of corruption or human rights, desirable though that is. Again, I do not wish to be misunderstood, but at the end of the day we do not mind who runs Afghanistan, including the Taliban, as long as they do not give support to al-Qaeda—as long as they do not provide a sanctuary for that or any similar terrorist organisation. I detest the Taliban as much as anyone because of what they believe in. I detest many organisations and peoples around the world with unacceptable views, but that is not a matter that need result in a military intervention in the country concerned.
	Whether we deal with the Taliban depends on whether the Taliban as a whole, which is unlikely, or substantial elements within the Taliban, which is much more probable, either are prepared or may become prepared to negotiate with the Afghan Government either on a coalition or on something of that kind. Let me respond to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell) by saying that the relevance of our military presence is that if we want to ensure, as I am sure my hon. Friend does, that al-Qaeda or other terrorists cannot use Afghanistan, it is highly desirable for us to involve at least a proportion of the Taliban in the political process if they are willing to co-operate in that objective. I do not consider it to be an unrealistic objective.
	The reason why I shall be perfectly happy if we have more NATO troops in Afghanistan is that it will help to convince the Taliban that while we may not be able to achieve a complete military victory, nor can they. A political solution will therefore become increasingly attractive to a substantial proportion of the Taliban, and may then enable a political solution to be achieved which will help us to deliver our fundamental requirement: no terrorism ever again emanating from Afghanistan.

Denis MacShane: It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), described in Lord Howe's memoirs as a brilliant speaker without notes. We saw again today just how right that description was. It is also a pleasure to follow my fellow Mertonian, the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell). I do not quite know why Merton college produces so many people with an interest in geopolitics, but there it is.
	I will start by mentioning a date: on 25 June 2003, the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, for the first time came to the Dispatch Box to pay tribute to a soldier who had fallen in the campaign in Afghanistan. Now, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have to go through that ritual every Wednesday. We understand that, but I wonder whether our fellow citizens and we as Members of Parliament will at some point say, "That's enough." I hope that the good people of Rotherham will continue to send me here to spend more years in Parliament, and I would like many a Wednesday to go by without such condolences having to be paid.
	I make that point as a supporter of the decision of the Euro-Atlantic community and NATO to be present in Afghanistan. I do not get any sense that there is a strategy, however. There are tactical interventions and comments here and there. I heard Secretary Gates refer to the impossibility of making Afghanistan a Valhalla. I hope he was accurate in that because, of course, Valhalla is where dead heroes go to their final eternal rest—I am unsure to what extent some senior American politicians are educated in the classics nowadays.
	I propose a non-aggression pact to the Front-Bench teams of all three main parties. Is it possible to have a fabulous discussion of "Hamlet" without mentioning the prince, or of "The Jungle Book" without referring to the elephants or tigers? If India is not mentioned in the context of how to solve this broad regional problem, we will never have a strategy, but merely tactical interventions.
	It is easy to send our troops into foreign fields, but it is much more difficult to get them out. I remember hearing a Defence Secretary say, "Oh, the soldiers are only going to Afghanistan. They won't do any shooting. They'll only be there for a short time." Then, not so long ago, I think it was one of the senior generals who said, "They could be there for 30 years." I want to know this: what is our strategy? Does NATO have a strategy? Does the United States have a strategy? I do not seriously expect a full answer to this question tonight, but it must be posed.
	With the arrival of a new President in America, we have an opportunity to set Afghanistan in a wider context. Afghanistan was the base where the planning and organisation was done for the killing of people in America, and it is part of the broader base—linked with Pakistan, I accept—whence the people came who killed the Londoners on 7 July 2005. That planning, recruitment, training and killing continues: even today, five people have been blown up at a hospital in Pakistan. I do not have the details, but I do not think that can be divorced from the fact that we face an ideological onslaught on our values.
	There is a clearly expressed ideology of militant Islamist fundamentalism that not only wants to kill, but rejects all the values that uphold democracy—the rule of law, open economies, freedom of expression—as well as the rights of those of other religions and women and gays to live their lives as they wish. It is not just western countries who suffer from this ideological assault. Al-Qaeda's number two, Mr. al-Zawahiri, has stated that the Pakistani Government are "apostate" and should be overthrown. It is time that we drew a much clearer distinction between Islamism as an ideology and the faith of Islam.
	We must also recognise that there are great forces around the world with a strategic interest in seeing NATO, the United States, Great Britain, the west and the Euro-Atlantic community defeated. There is an open-ended supply of arms from Iran and other parts of the region to the people who are seeking to kill our soldiers. We can send as many helicopters there as we like, but as the Russians will tell us, helicopters do not do the trick. We can bomb as much as much as we like, too—in 2007, the US air force had almost 3,000 strike hits—but that has not decreased the violence.
	Kyrgyzstan is shutting down its supply base for America, so if the Khyber pass is choked off—as seems to be the case—land supplies can come in only through Russia. I do not wish to make comments about Russia in this debate, but putting NATO and America at the mercy of Mr. Putin does not seem strategically wise, so we need to think in a different way. The player that we have to bring in is India.
	So far this century, we have sent more than £1 billion to India in development aid, yet India is rich enough to plant its flag on the moon and, as has been described, to be a nuclear-armed power. It is spending up to a reported $1 billion in its own development programme in Afghanistan. Thus, Pakistan feels encircled. There are 500,000 Indian troops in Kashmir and 70,000 Kashmiris have died since the Indian army moved in nearly 20 years ago—far more than all those killed in the middle east. The bulk of the Pakistani military has to focus on that. A country cannot have 500,000 troops actively engaged in training and manoeuvres on its frontier and not take appropriate precautions—there is no example in history of that happening. So we have to say to India that it should de-escalate a bitterly emotional dispute.
	Former President Musharraf said that the line of control should be treated as a de facto frontier, and I invite the two Front-Bench teams not to snipe over the question of who raises Kashmir. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was right to repeat the then Senator Obama's absolute hyphenation between Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. To get things going, we have to discuss the Kashmiri issue. When my right hon. Friend came back, he was trashed in  The Daily Telegraph and the  Daily Mail—all those papers that just seek to score cheap political points. Let the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) have the guts to say that Kashmir, India and Pakistan need to be discussed, and let us stop sniping about that issue.
	While on holiday in India at the new year, I was appalled to read the militaristic language being used against Pakistan, to see maps in Indian papers of Pakistan re-partitioned, to read about serious people discussing a military invasion of Pakistan and to be able to watch a TV show called "Dial Pak for Terror". We have to get the hyphens back in place; India must bear a responsibility and we must make that clear.

Ann Winterton: This debate rightly focuses on both Afghanistan and Pakistan because, although there is an established international border between the two countries, in many remote places it is virtually ignored by local tribes, who move freely back and forth. I propose to concentrate my remarks on Afghanistan and to focus primarily and perhaps rather narrowly on what is needed to promote the creation of wealth. We all applaud efforts to build schools and hospitals and to provide for other social needs, but if wealth is created the country will not have to depend for ever on international aid.
	The security situation in Afghanistan has to be sorted out before the creation of wealth can begin. The military are currently expected to provide the security, with civilian contractors following up with reconstruction projects, but until the population are convinced that life is better than it was under the old regime, there will continue to be flare-ups—many Afghan men will still have a rifle concealed under their dishdash ready to exploit any situation, and the re-infiltration of Taliban forces will continue to bring about failures in the security situation.
	I would like briefly to pursue two themes: power supply and the road capacity. The Taliban want neither to succeed; they do not want capacity to be enlarged or such facilities to be made more efficient. They would prefer to continue to rely on the heroin trade and the restrictions on society that we in the west find so abhorrent. The Afghan Energy Information Centre tells us that Afghanistan has 18 hydroelectric power plants, with a generating capacity of 263 MW, and 15 thermal plants, which are run on imported diesel and generate 88 MW. It says that a further 296 MW is imported from 13 sources in neighbouring countries. Afghanistan has a total capacity of more than 600 MW, although output is estimated to be around 400 MW, and about 20 MW per 1 million people is provided. That is insignificant when compared with UK provision, which is 1,000 MW per 1 million people.
	There is no national grid in Afghanistan because of the security situation, and distribution is limited to businesses and individuals located in the major cities or those close to the sources of power generation. That severely limits Afghanistan's ability to establish wealth-creation projects, although it has tremendous assets such as coal reserves of 400 million tonnes—no doubt destined to fuel China's coal-fired power stations—and gas, oil, copper, iron ore and many other minerals. In addition, it has the ability to grow crops in its rural areas which, if storage areas and transport facilities were developed, could be exported to the west or elsewhere.
	The construction and maintenance of much needed roads appears to be a hotch-potch international affair with very mixed results. India, for example, has just completed a 135 mile road linking the province of Nimroz to the Iranian port of Chabahar, thereby opening up a new trade route. That has attracted some sniping from Pakistan, which will lose its trade monopoly and is probably worried about its rival's growing influence in Afghanistan.
	In late 2001, approximately 16 per cent. of Afghanistan's roads were paved, compared with more than 80 per cent. in neighbouring Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. The percentage of paved roads has now increased to 29 per cent. and they have the advantage of being faster for communication, security and the movement of goods. It is also more difficult for insurgents to plant mines and IEDs in roads than in dirt tracks, but maintenance is a continual problem, especially in the mountain areas where damage is caused by the melting of the winter snows.
	The Afghan Government and the USA and other donors consider road construction to be a top development priority and almost 20 per cent. of the US Agency for International Development's $5.9 billion assistance to Afghanistan has been for roads. However, detailed information on this subject has been difficult to obtain, particularly on provincial and rural roads.

Bernard Jenkin: Let me start by protesting at the absurd shortness of the debate, which is totally inadequate even for the sprinkling of Members present. Why are so few people here? It is because so few people will get the opportunity to speak. I blue-pencilled my speech to fit it into the time available, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Holloway) who has spent days working on his speech, drawing on his enormous experience, will be reduced to a few scraps. It is intolerable and I hope that the Government will take that to heart and give the House more time to discuss these vital issues.
	I agree with much of what has been said and, most worrying, I find myself agreeing with those who are most doom-laden. Our soldiers continue to win battles against the Taliban in Helmand but the politicians in Afghanistan and the west seem incapable of taking advantage of the time and space won by the blood of our brave troops.
	The story is the same across Afghanistan. We went to Afghanistan, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) pointed out, solely with the objective of toppling the regime that sheltered al-Qaeda. However, we have finished up nation building.
	Our problems in Helmand are a microcosm of the wider difficulties that the international security assistance force is experiencing: lack of military and civil capacity, a vacuum of governance, overstretch and a complete lack of strategic direction. I met a senior non-commissioned officer who was back from Afghanistan just before Christmas, and he told me, "We are there to help them but they just don't want to be helped." That reinforces the central message of James Fergusson's excellent book, "A Million Bullets", which is that much of what we have found ourselves doing in Afghanistan seems to have been counter-productive.
	Our armed forces are brilliant and brave, but their tactical successes seem to contribute little towards strategic success. They merely stir up a hornets' nest. Lord Ashdown went even further in a remarkable interview on the "Today" programme on 24 January. It pains me to repeat him, but he said:
	"I fear...we are now wasting the lives of our young men and women".
	That is a serious charge to bear for us as politicians responsible for the situation.
	We would do well to recall the greatest Chinese military thinker, Sun Tzu, who said
	"strategy without tactics is the slowest way to victory"
	but
	"tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat".
	I agree entirely with the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), who has unfortunately absented himself from the Chamber, that the lack of strategy is our biggest problem. The hesitancy of the Foreign Secretary, perhaps in an attempt to seem reasonable and open-minded, conveys a lack of confidence that I have also picked up on in private meetings in the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence and from our military commanders.
	We have a campaign plan but we have no overall plan to win the war, as pointed out by Professor Hew Strachan recently at the Royal United Services Institute. NATO is operating the 21st-century equivalent of the Schlieffen plan at the start of the first world war, when railway timetables behind the German front lines became the driving factor of German military policy. With a new US President, it is time to say these hard things in the hope that a coherent strategy will emerge.
	Lord Ashdown suggests that three essentials are required alongside additional military and aid capacity: an international plan, signed up to by everybody; proper international co-ordination expressed with a single voice; and a regional construct—a treaty—to involve Afghanistan's neighbours, including Iran, that is underpinned by the world powers, including China. Let us hope that Richard Holbrooke's appointment heralds that new single voice, but reinforces another lesson. The UN does not and cannot successfully prosecute wars. Wars need leadership of the kind that, in this case, only the United States can provide. If some nations are not prepared to accept that, it would be almost more helpful if they left the field altogether instead of insisting on overcomplicated command chains and caveats that preoccupy commanders with process instead of outcomes.
	If we Europeans want a say in US strategy, we must commit the European forces that can make a real difference. Sadly for the British, our armed forces are so overstretched and run-down that we have limited additional military capacity to offer just as the new President is looking to America's allies to prove themselves. We are losing influence in Washington and at US central command in Tampa, Florida, and we have only ourselves to blame. That is more than just bad for the UK, it threatens our ultimate success. With our history and blood ties in the region, particularly in Pakistan, we are uniquely placed to be effective and proactive.
	It is true that Pakistan is vital to success in Afghanistan, but that misses the real point. In the long term, Pakistan is far more significant strategically than Afghanistan. We should be devoting far more to our excellent mission in Pakistan and committing far more military resources to helping the Pakistani army.
	Military diplomacy was meant to be a big thing in the 1998 strategic defence review, but the Government keep cutting the numbers of defence and military attaches in our embassies. We have a good but tiny military-to-military relationship with the Pakistan. Given the scale of the potential strategic threat of terrorism, and the disastrous possibility that a Government armed with nuclear weapons might fall into the hands of extremists, why on earth is military diplomacy not being addressed with far more urgency?
	We have spent billions of pounds in Afghanistan, perhaps not very effectively. A few hundred million more spent in Pakistan would be of far greater strategic benefit. We should be helping to reform and modernise the Pakistani military to give the army the self-confidence to conduct modern and sophisticated counter-insurgency campaigns, to divert it from its hopeless preoccupation with India, and to help it integrate into a stable Pakistani democratic settlement. We would also be tackling the roots of the insurgency in Afghanistan; at present we are treating the symptoms and not the cause.

John Horam: I profoundly agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) said about the importance of Pakistan. We should not forget that it is the sixth most populous country in the world, with 170 million people, or that it is a nuclear power.
	One warning that I would make about putting Afghanistan together with Pakistan in this debate is that we must not prejudice improvement in Pakistan by our actions in Afghanistan. It is that important.
	Even so, there are some grounds for optimism about the present situation. First, we have a new President in America. I voted against the Iraq war because I felt that America took its eye off the ball in Afghanistan between 2000 and 2003, and we are paying a very heavy price for that neglect.
	Secondly, we have better people in charge now. General Petraeus has more confidence than some of his predecessors and did a good job in Iraq. I think that he is the right person to manage these matters, given his experience in an equally difficult part of the world.
	Thirdly, it is clear that there is a new emphasis in Pakistan on the importance of relations with Afghanistan. President Zardari, for example, had President Karzai with him during his inaugural procedures, and that was a good sign. Moreover, the Pakistani Parliament had a long and very sensible discussion last October about negotiations in Afghanistan, and that is a very good sign indeed.
	As has been said, however, the situation on the ground is dire. The Joint Defence and Foreign Affairs Committee recently heard evidence from Lieutenant-General Wall. Several Opposition Members were present, and the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) said that we had been told in New York that only one of the 13 provinces in Helmand was now under control. Lieutenant-General Wall agreed and said that that was a fair assessment. In his speech today, the Foreign Secretary insisted that far more provinces were under control, but it is clear that the situation is fluctuating and I do not believe that the present assessment is correct. It is worrying that Lieutenant-General Wall should have made those comments.
	The situation on the ground in Afghanistan is dire and, as various contributors to this short debate have said, we need a radical adjustment of our strategy. In particular, greater emphasis needs to be placed on political dialogue with the Taliban and the Pashtun. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Holloway), if he gets called to speak, will elaborate on those matters, which I have discussed with him over the past few years. I agree with his basic proposition that we must negotiate sensibly with those elements of the Taliban and the Pashtun who will respond. I appreciate that it is very difficult to decide who to negotiate with and what they want, but nonetheless I think that that is inevitable.
	Fourthly, as Adam Roberts—an Oxford professor and noted authority on the issue—pointed out in evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee, which will visit Afghanistan in April:
	"One informed and persuasive critique of the approach to counter-insurgency used in Afghanistan since 2003 suggests that its emphasis on extending the reach of central government is precisely the wrong strategy: its authors, specialists in the region, argue instead for a rural security presence that has been largely lacking."
	In other words, there is some doubt about whether for ever strengthening the central Government's military force is the right thing to do.
	Clearly, Pakistan has to make a much bigger effort to deal with the problems. As has been said, the border more or less does not exist as far as the Pashtuns are concerned. As was pointed out by the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), in the FATA—the federally administered tribal areas of Pakistan—female literacy is at 3 per cent., which is appalling. Unemployment is at 80 per cent. Are we surprised that those people are ready to be radicalised by the Taliban? There, too, a major effort has to be made to get the show on the road, so I hope that in future we can have longer debates on the subject. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex that the allocation of three hours for a debate on Pakistan and Afghanistan is lamentable.
	I hope that we can have debates of a decent length on the issue, particularly, as the shadow Foreign Secretary says, when there are major, or even significant, changes to the UK Government's strategy, as there have been from time to time. I hope that there will be a radical change in strategy, but I believe that we should be there in Afghanistan, for the reasons that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) so admirably set out.

Julian Lewis: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. He leads me on to the next stage of my argument, which is to do with the ideological war that needs to be articulated.

Quentin Davies: They square entirely. Conversations are going on about all sorts of things at all times with our allies—and so they should. I repeat that we have had no formal, concrete or specific requests or recommendations, and I speak advisedly because I know that I am speaking on the record.
	The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks asked about helicopters in Afghanistan. Strangely, he said that was not so interested in helicopter hours or availability, he simply wanted more machines. Helicopter hours and helicopters with the right sort of capability, whether lift or ground support, at the right time—available as rapidly as possible to commanders on the spot—are important. We have made a considerable increase—60 per cent.—from the beginning of 2007 to the end of last year in the availability of helicopter time to our forces in Afghanistan. This year, there will also be a substantial increase—25 or 30 per cent.—including some Merlins, which he mentioned. We are also re-engining several Lynxes to enable them to operate on a 24-hour-day, seven-day-week, 365-day-year basis. I may have contributed modestly to that, and I set much store by it. That would constitute a considerable increase in our capacity. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman recognises that we have addressed the issue.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) spoke a little about Afghanistan and rather more about Pakistan. He acknowledged that the emancipation of women in all areas that ISAF controls or that are under our influence has been one of the great, positive changes in Afghanistan since ISAF intervention. The main thrust of his speech was Pakistan, a country with which he is obviously familiar. He made the point that many other hon. Members made: that Afghanistan cannot easily be disentangled from Pakistan, which cannot easily be disentangled from relations with India, which cannot easily be disentangled from the problem of Kashmir. We all accept that.
	We feel some sympathy for the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), who has been abandoned, not only by the defence and foreign affairs spokesmen of her party, but by all her colleagues in her parliamentary party. None the less, she delivered a well informed and lucid speech to which we enjoyed listening. She made some significant points on behalf of her party, including saying that more troops may be necessary in Afghanistan. She put it in the subjunctive, but it was an important point. She also said that United Kingdom should be prepared to make an additional small contribution. I note the word "small". In that respect, the Liberal Democrats seem rather more decisive than Conservative Members, who do not express themselves so clearly on the matter. One sometimes suspects that—to use the term that was used yesterday rather memorably—there is a little bit of opportunism in the air.  [ Laughter. ] That will probably be my last party political swipe of the evening.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Sarwar) spoke with great knowledge about the history of United States-Pakistan relations. Obviously he knows a lot about the background and a lot about Pakistan's history. I was glad to hear that he had led a delegation of colleagues to Pakistan, because it is extremely important that we maintain such contacts. As he said, we do not have just a long-standing historical relationship with Pakistan, which goes back to what the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell) calls the Raj, or a large number of citizens here whose family origins are in that country. We do not want our links to be just historical; we want them to continue—to be burnished and kept alive. Such initiatives are extremely welcome and valuable.
	Now I come to the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle. The House always enjoys his contributions. I do not think that I have ever heard one without learning some new historical fact, and today's was about Lord Salisbury telling the viceroy of India that he needed to use a larger-scale map, which is certainly a memorable phrase. The hon. Gentleman always enlightens the House, but he is always a pessimist about any British involvement anywhere. He said—I hope that I noted down his words correctly—that we want to "get out of Afghanistan altogether". I do not agree with that, for reasons that I will come to in my concluding remarks. However, the House will have greatly appreciated his excellent speech.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) was also a pessimist. In fact, his analysis and predictions were extremely close to those of the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle, although I do not imagine that they agree on many things in the House. My hon. Friend said one thing that I have to dispute, which is that Kandahar is almost entirely in the hands of the Taliban. I was in Kandahar last month and I can testify that that is not correct.
	The right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) made an extremely well informed speech, as one would expect. He started by saying that our involvement in Afghanistan is very different from the Soviet occupation and cannot be compared to it, and that we went in basically to defend our essential interests. I totally agree and shall say a few words about that. Indeed, there was much in his speech with which I quite agreed.
	The right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane)—

Traffic Management (County Durham)

Phil Hope: I congratulate the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker)—as I have done before—on securing the Adjournment debate, and thank him for again using the opportunity to raise the key issue of mental health. He spoke with enormous passion and terrific eloquence. I have heard him speak before on the issue, and our view on it is very much shared across the House.
	I echo what the hon. Gentleman said about us as a society. We like to think that stigma of this kind is a sin of the past: we do not like to think that any sort of discrimination can be endemic in our modern society, or that it can still have—as the hon. Gentleman made clear—such a profound and negative impact on people's lives. On this and previous occasions, the hon. Gentleman has done a very good job of pricking that bubble of complacency. As he rightly said, when it comes to mental health, stigma is unfortunately very much alive and well—thriving, in fact—and is something that we need to confront and defeat as a matter of urgency.
	Let me briefly make an observation, because I was interested in the hon. Gentleman's description of how we have made progress on various matters. This might be a crude simplification, but it seems to me that we have made a breakthrough on discrimination in every decade: in the '70s, on gender discrimination; in the '80s, on racism; in the '90s, on homophobia; and in this decade, perhaps on ageism. I am not suggesting that we have totally eradicated discrimination on any of those grounds— obviously there is a lot more that we can do—but we made big leaps forward in those years.
	The stigma attached to mental health is the elephant in the room. Approaching the second decade of the 21st century, we may have mental health services that rank among the best in Europe according to the World Health Organisation, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that popular attitudes to mental health are well behind the times. He eloquently gave an example of someone he met in his constituency. I was struck by the story of a lady who had suffered from breast cancer, and who said that her friends and colleagues found it much easier to deal with her cancer than with the depression that followed when she went into remission. As a rule, people with a physical illness get flowers, sympathy and support; with mental illness, they are often met with silence and solitude—and sometimes reproach. Moreover, this is just the tip of the iceberg, because stigma and discrimination—in businesses, in the media, in public services and across communities—mean that many people never really escape the legacy of their mental health problems not because of poor health, but because of poor attitudes. Giving people flowers or sympathy is fine, but we must address the harsh reality of disadvantage and social exclusion—problems in finding and keeping work, in securing housing and in education and training. What stigma does is deny people opportunity and hope for a better future; I am thinking of the example the hon. Gentleman gave of the individual in his constituency whom he met after he was first elected.
	Certain groups are more affected than others and suffer a "double discrimination"—this came up in a debate we had in the House a few weeks ago. Some black and minority ethnic groups have high rates of severe mental illness as well as facing greater inequality in terms of their access to, and experience of, mental health services. That must change. Our five-year action plan, "Delivering race equality in mental health care", aims to address that by showing how services must adapt to offer timely and culturally sensitive care to different cultural groups. We will also put race inequality—and age inequality, which is another key issue—at the heart of the new horizons project, which is the new vision for mental health we are currently developing.
	Having agreed with much of what the hon. Gentleman said, I wish to add that it would be wrong to portray this as a "year zero" moment in tackling this matter, or any other kind of stigma in mental health. Thanks to more than £1.5 billion of further investment in mental health since 2001, the reality is that things are changing: services are improving and experiences are better for people with mental health problems.
	Since the last debate, I have had the pleasure of seeing at first hand how a combination of investment and innovation is changing lives. I visited Newham, and if the hon. Gentleman wants to see some excellent practice I recommend he sees what is happening there, too. It has pioneered new ways of improving access to psychological therapies. I met a young French mother who told me how the service she receives linked her to a whole network of support, including a children's centre and a job club. Her therapist was always available to her, including by text message on her mobile phone, so she always knew somebody was there when a moment arose when she needed support. I spoke to her directly, and it was clear that that support made all the difference. She is now much better and she is receiving help to look for a job—and I am sure she will find one very soon. What was even more encouraging was how the treatment centre I visited linked her with other people who used the centre—and although she has moved on, she still goes there for a cup of tea and a chat when she needs it.
	Indeed, the whole community in Newham is starting to break down barriers. Another group, who had received cognitive behavioural therapy, has volunteered to take leaflets round to local clubs and community venues, letting people know help is available. The hon. Gentleman may not know Newham, so may I tell him that it is one of the most ethnically diverse boroughs in the country? That word-of-mouth support has been key to improving the number of black and Asian people receiving treatment. They can self-refer, walk into that centre and get the benefits from it. That has not led to an avalanche of responses from the worried well, as some people feared. People were coming forward with illnesses as serious and enduring as those referred by doctors, so this approach has opened up services for the black and minority ethnic community in a way that others have not.
	All in all, the visit I made was an inspiring one. The hon. Gentleman described how he was inspired by the people whom he has met and, likewise, I have been inspired by the people whom I met in Newham. The Government are investing £173 million over the next three years to deliver similar programmes around the country, so that what happens in Newham will soon happen everywhere.
	Transforming mental health services is not enough—as the hon. Gentleman said, we must transform attitudes across all public services. Every touch point for people with mental health problems needs to be aware of that and must not hang on to discriminatory attitudes. Our national social inclusion programme and public service agreement No. 16 are focusing minds in public services, bringing together action across central Government and translating it into progress at the local level, particularly on issues associated with settled employment and settled accommodation for individuals.
	As the Minister for the East Midlands—that is another role that I have—I have created a regional sounding board in the east midlands to develop practical action across all the agencies that operate regionally on housing, on jobs and on education and training, so that we can bring those people together to examine what more we need to do. That is particularly important now, when people who are a long way away from the employment market are likely to become further away from it if we do not take action to support them.
	The Government have a raft of smaller initiatives in place that are aimed at offering individual services that confront and do not compound stigma: the Open to All training package for museums and galleries; the "Really Useful Book of Learning and Earning", which has been distributed to carers, jobcentre advisers, colleges and training providers; and the Work Matters advice for occupational therapists, which helps them to obtain the advice and guidance necessary to meet their clients' needs.
	Getting local services right can be a springboard for wider changes across society. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning Shift, which is funded by the Department of Health and is doing great work to confront prejudice in two key areas: the workplace and the media. It was great to hear what he had to say about the analysis done by his researcher; perhaps we are beginning to have an impact and perhaps some of that work is beginning to have an influence. He is right to say that leading figures in the media who are prepared to stand up and challenge their own industry on all this are important to making progress. The work being done is also contributing to our forthcoming national mental health and employment strategy, to be led by Dame Carol Black, which will be vital to breaking down barriers to employment in all sectors. It would be great if we could work with the media so that instead of taking an unhelpful, sensationalist approach, they could suddenly become the solution to the problem of changing attitudes to mental health.
	That leads me to my final point: the need to create a deeper cultural change across society. The hon. Gentleman and I very much share that aim, which requires political leadership. That is why it is so important that we are having these debates in the House. I know that there is a growing consensus between the political parties and, indeed, between Governments on the issue. I recently attended an international conference on stigma in mental health, where I shared a platform with the hon. Member for Guildford (Anne Milton), who speaks on behalf of the Conservatives, and the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who speaks on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. No one could have put a cigarette paper between us; we shared the view that we should challenge that stigma.
	I was delighted that the Prime Minister and I attended a cross-party photo opportunity to mark the launch of Time to Change. It has rightly been described as pioneering work. It is a new social marketing programme, rightly led by the third sector—by Mind, Rethink and Mental Health Media—and it is very significant. This is the start of another long journey on which those organisations are going to take us. The fact that the impetus is coming from those organisations will help to garner support in the wider community. We have to reach far deeper into the public's mindset if we are to achieve the outcomes that the hon. Gentleman and I seek.
	An exciting range of activities is planned as part of Time to Change, such as more community-based projects, challenging stigma through social contact and physical activity; training offered to new teachers and doctors on support for people with mental health problems; and even tackling discrimination through test cases in court.
	Our efforts in Westminster must join up with Time to Change to create a social movement for change that involves everyone—politicians, practitioners, journalists, the general public—and, of course, people with mental health problems must be at the helm.
	Stigma is the enemy of fairness and a barrier to progress. As a society, we must stand united against it. I am proud of what we have achieved in mental health services. I am proud of the significant expansion in community-based support for people with mental health problems, and of the praise that the World Health Organisation reserved for our system in its recent report. But stigma threatens those achievements. So we need the same conviction, the same strength and the same focus that helped us to break down past sources of discrimination—which I mentioned earlier—to end this one too. We all want this period to be the one that we will look back on and say, "That was the moment. It was 2009, the start of the second decade of the 21st century—that was when we made the breakthrough. That was when we opened people's eyes and changed their minds about mental health." I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to see that as much as I do. I hope that we can continue to work together to make it happen.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.